' GULZAR AHMED, J.---Petitioner through this petition has impugned the judgment dated 6-5-2014 passed by the learned Judge in Chamber of High Court of Sindh at Karachi, by which the petitioner's Constitution Petition was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that respondent No, 1 had filed Rent Case for ejectment of the petitioner from Shop No, 1 situated in the basement of Plot No, R-92, Sector 15;A/3, Buffer Zone, North Karachi on the ground of personal bona fide use. The. Petitioner through his counsel appeared before the court and sought time for filing of written statement, however, prior to filing of written statement, under the administrative order of District fudge, Central Karachi, the Rent Case was transferred to the Court of 4th Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Central-Karachi. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before the transferee court. Consequently on 16-7-2008 ex parte order was passed against the petitioner and the matter was fixed for filing of affidavit in ex parte proof. The affidavit in ex parte proof was filed and on 5-8-2008 respondent No, l's witnesses were also examined but as the petitioner and his counsel were absent, respondent No, 1's side was closed and court also heard the arguments of respondent No, 1 's counsel and fixed the matter for announcement of judgment on 19-8-2008. The petitioner on 8-8-2008 filed an application for recalling of the order dated 16-7-2008 and 5-8-2008 to which counter affidavit was filed by the respondent No,
1. Before this application of petitioner could be heard and decided, Rent Case was again transferred through an administrative order of District Judge, Central-Karachi to the Court of 2nd Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Central-Karachi. Neither the petitioner nor its counsel appeared before this transferee court, who through order dated 7-7-2009 dismissed the application of the petitioner and thereafter on 14-9-2009 the Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment against the petitioner. It may be noted that till the passing of order of ejectment, the petitioner and his counsel did not appear before the transferee court. The petitioner then filed First Rent Appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30-4-2011 of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Central- Karachi and the Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that provision of section 24-A, C.P.C. Has been relied upon for non-giving of court motion notice on the transfer of rent case from one Rent Controller to another. He has contended that provisions of C.P.C. Are not applicable in the rent proceedings and in this respect has relied upon the case of KHYBER INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v.
PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION (PLD 1994 SC 725). He has contend that section 20 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 specifically has invested the Rent Controller with power of Civil Court under C.P.C. In respect of four items only which did not include the provision of section 24-A, C.P.C. And therefore non-suiting the petitioner on the basis of such provision was not sustainable in law.
4. We have heard the submission of learned counsel and have gone through the record.
5. We may note that although in strict terms the provision of C.P.C. Is not applicable in the rent cases and this also seems to be the will of legislature, who under section 20 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 conferred powers upon the Controller and the Appellate Authority of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, compelling production or discovery of documents, inspecting the site, issuing commission for examination of witnesses or documents. It may however be noted that in large number of cases decided by this Court it has been repeatedly held that provisions of C.P.C. May not be applicable in rent proceedings in stricto sensu but the equitable principle of said Code will always be applicable in order to do complete justice between the parties and also to meet the ends of natural justice. In the very case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court has observed as follows:-- "There is no doubt that in some of the cases this Court has held that though C.P.C. Is not applicable to proceedings under the Ordinance but the Court in the interest of justice may apply any of the principles enunciated under the various provisions of the C.P.C."
6. It may be noted that section 24-A in C.P.C. Was inserted to overcome the situation of issuing court motion notices to the parties on transfer of a case from one court to another and very purpose of it was to forestall the delay in conclusion of the matter; which by experience has shown that service of court motion notices not only delays the conclusion of the case but results in multiple complications in the case which also itself becomes a reason for extra ordinary delay in the final conclusion of the case. It was, therefore, mandated that where on administrative reasons, the case is transferred, the parties were obliged to appear in the court in which the case is pending on the date already fixed and the original court will intimate the order of transfer and will direct the parties to appear before the transferee court either on the same day or after a short interval.
Addition of this provision in Code of Civil Procedure was thus meant for expeditious disposal of the cases and it obliged the parties to the proceedings not only to keep track of the case but also about the date fixed in the matter. This provision in our view is an equitable principle to foster the interest of justice which is meant to provide expeditious disposal of the case between the parties and would be equally applicable in the rent proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 because the underlining feature of this Ordinance is to provide special forum for expeditious disposal of disputes between landlord and tenant. It can in no way be considered as a technical provision or affecting the procedure of deciding the rent case which remains intact.
7. The petitioner admittedly has failed to follow the equitable provision of section 24-A, C.P.C., which though was followed by the respondent No,
1. The petitioner or his counsel did not attend the original court of Rent Controller on the date fixed and therefore, did not obtain the information of transfer of the case to another court of Rent Controller nor the next date fixed in it. Had the petitioner or his counsel attended the original Court of Rent Controller on the date fixed, there would have been no reason as to why the information of transfer of the case and the next date would not have been communicated to them. This omission was made by the petitioner not once but twice and when the petitioner ultimately appeared, the matter has already reached the stage of its conclusion that is for announcement of judgment and it was too late for the petitioner to join the proceedings.
8. In our view, the impugned judgment is just and fair which requires no interference by this Court.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, following short order was passed today:-- "For the reasons to be recorded later, this petition is dismissed.
' Since this is commercial premises, six months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question subject to payment of rent and other amenities charges. In case, the petitioner fails to vacate the premises by 13-2-2015, the Rent Controller shall issue writ of possession with police aid without notice to the petitioner for possession to the respondents."
9. Above are the reasons for the same.